‘I'm a photographer,not a terrorist’: the use of photography to detect deception

When planning large-scale incidents or bombing campaigns, terrorists often conduct reconnaissance research to identify key targets. This may include taking photographs of potential target locations. Identifying an effective real-time method to distinguish between genuine photographers and those with more sinister intent may be beneficial for law enforcement and security agencies. Participants took photographs in a public place with a genuine intent (truth tellers) or sinister intent (liars). After taking these photographs, the participants were approached by an undercover interviewer (a mime artist) who asked them whether he could see the photographs. Later, the participants discussed their photographs in a formal interview. First, liars were less cooperative in their interaction with the undercover interviewer than truth tellers. Second, in the formal interview, liars mentioned some security features that appeared in the photographs more than truth tellers. The findings suggest that ‘using photographs to detect deception’ is a subject that could prove important to explore to benefit forensic and counter-terrorist practice.     

The occurrence of eye blinks during a guilty knowledge test

Abstract

In the present experiment we examined whether eye blinks could discriminate between guilty and innocent examinees in a Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT). Based on the assumption that guilty examinees would experience more cognitive load when responding to the key items than to the control items, we hypothesized that they would display fewer eye blinks during the key items than during the control items. For innocent examinees, responding to the key and control items should be equally demanding, and no differences in eye blinks between key and control items were expected. A total of 26 participants took part in an experiment where 13 guilty examinees committed a mock theft (of an exam paper) and the remaining 13 innocent examinees went on with their normal business. All participants underwent a GKT whereby their eye blinks were measured. Both guilty and innocent examinees displayed the pattern of eye blinks that we predicted. The implications of the findings are discussed.     

Police officers’ judgements of veracity,tenseness, cognitive load and attempted behavioural control in real-life police interviews

Abstract

The present experiment examined the apparently incongruent findings that police officers (i) believe that suspects show nervous behaviour when they lie but (ii) seem able to detect deceit in suspects who do not show nervous behaviours. It was hypothesized that police officers’ judgements about whether a suspect is lying would not be correlated with their judgements regarding whether the suspect is tense, but, instead, would be correlated with their judgements regarding whether suspects are having to think hard or attempting to control their behaviour.

Each of 84 police officers saw seven truths and seven lies told by suspects during their police interviews. Participants in Condition 1 were asked to indicate after each clip whether the suspect was lying, whereas participants in Condition 2 were asked to note after each clip to what extent the suspect appeared to be tense, having to think hard or attempting to control their behaviour. Condition 3 was a combination of Conditions 1 and 2 and participants were asked all the above questions. The findings support the hypotheses and therefore negate the assumption that police officers primarily look for cues of nervousness when they attempt to detect deceit.     

Increasing Cognitive Load to Facilitate Lie Detection: The Benefit of Recalling an Event in Reverse Order

In two experiments, we tested the hypotheses that (a) the difference between liars and truth tellers will be greater when interviewees report their stories in reverse order than in chronological order, and (b) instructing interviewees to recall their stories in reverse order will facilitate detecting deception. In Experiment 1, 80 mock suspects told the truth or lied about a staged event and did or did not report their stories in reverse order. The reverse order interviews contained many more cues to deceit than the control interviews. In Experiment 2, 55 police officers watched a selection of the videotaped interviews of Experiment 1 and made veracity judgements. Requesting suspects to convey their stories in reverse order improved police observers' ability to detect deception and did not result in a response bias.     

On Lie Detection “Wizards”

M. O'Sullivan and P. Ekman (2004) claim to have discovered 29 wizards of deception detection. The present commentary offers a statistical critique of the evidence for this claim. Analyses reveal that chance can explain results that the authors attribute to wizardry. Thus, by the usual statistical logic of psychological research, O'Sullivan and Ekman's claims about wizardry are gratuitous. Even so, there may be individuals whose wizardry remains to be uncovered. Thus, the commentary outlines forms of evidence that are (and are not) capable of diagnosing lie detection wizardry.     

US police officers’ knowledge regarding behaviors indicative of deception: Implications for eradicating erroneous beliefs through training

Abstract

The current study surveyed a random sample of Texas law enforcement officers (n?=?109) about their knowledge regarding behaviors indicative of deception. The officers were not highly knowledgeable about this topic, overall performing at a chance level in assessing how various behavioral cues relate to deception. Confidence in one's skill was unrelated to accuracy, and officers who reported receiving the most training and utilizing these skills more often were more confident but no more accurate in their knowledge of the behaviors that typically betray deception. The authors compare these results to previous studies that have examined officers’ beliefs in other countries and discuss the implication of these results in terms of developing future training programs that may debunk the common misconceptions that officers possess.     

Who should I look at? Eye contact during collective interviewing as a cue to deceit

Pairs of liars and pairs of truth tellers were interviewed and the amount of eye contact they made with the interviewer and each other was coded. Given that liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers, we expected liars to monitor the interviewer to see whether they were being believed, and to try harder to convince the interviewer that they were telling the truth. It was hypothesised that this monitoring would manifest itself through more eye contact with the interviewer and less eye contact with each other than in the case of truth tellers. A total of 43 pairs of participants took part in the experiment. Truth tellers had lunch in a nearby restaurant. Liars took some money from a purse, and were asked to pretend that instead of taking the money, they had been to a nearby restaurant together for lunch. Pairs of liars looked less at each other and displayed more eye contact with the interviewer than pairs of truth tellers. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

基于眼动追踪测量认知负荷变化的犯罪心理测试

目的探索可用于认知犯罪心理测试的眼动指标及测试方法。方法对被测人进行视觉、听觉双通路-双任务模拟案件犯罪心理测试,要求被测人对相同问题分别进行诚实回答和欺骗回答,对不同眼动数据和行为数据进行分析。结果注视点离靶、眼跳次数、眨眼间隔随认知负荷（实施欺骗时）增加而增大,并未发现瞳孔变化与答题策略间存在特定关系。结论注视点、离靶距离等眼动指标能有效分析认知负荷变化且应用于认知犯罪心理测试。     

Juvenile Sex Offenders: Differences between Group and Solo Offenders

We report on findings from a study into differences in personality and background characteristics between juvenile sex offenders who commit their sex offenses on their own and those who do so in a group. Solo offenders were found to score significantly higher on neuroticism, impulsivity and sensation seeking, but scored lower on sociability. In addition, the solo offenders in the sample were more often recidivists for sexual offenses, and were more often themselves a victim of a sexual offense. Solo offenders were significantly older than juveniles who had committed a sexual offense with a group. On the basis of these results we recommend differential treatment for the two types of offenders.